Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-lqwgf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-01T21:28:10.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2026

Cristiane Silva Ferreira*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Brasilia, Brazil
Augusto Cesar Franco
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Brasilia, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: Cristiane Silva Ferreira; Email: cferreiraunb@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The rapid spread of non-native perennial grasses across South American savannas poses a growing threat to native plant diversity and ecosystem functioning. They disrupt key ecological processes, including fire regimes, nutrient cycling and plant community dynamics, driving the loss of functional diversity and the homogenization of native vegetation. This review compiles current knowledge on the ecological impacts of the nine most invasive perennial grass species in South American savannas and the challenges faced in controlling them, with a particular emphasis on the Brazilian Cerrado. We examine the mechanisms by which they outcompete native species, alter soil–plant interactions and inhibit natural regeneration. Particular attention is given to the ecological traits that confer competitive advantages to these invasive grasses under conditions of disturbance, increased nutrient availability and climate change. We also evaluate the challenges faced in the ecological restoration of invaded areas and discuss integrated strategies for controlling invasions and promoting the recovery of native species. This synthesis underscores the urgent need to address invasions by non-native grasses through coordinated research, new policies and management efforts aimed to safeguard the long-term biodiversity and ecological resilience of South American savannas.

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Representative Amazonian savannas: (A) Rupununi savanna, at the border between Venezuela and Brazil. (B) Lavrados of Roraima, (C) Alter do Chão savannas and (D) Amapá savannas in northern Brazil.

Figure 1

Table 1. General characterization of the main invasive perennial grasses in South American savannas

Figure 2

Figure 2. Diagram summarizing key ecological processes associated with the establishment and spread of invasive grasses in South American savannas, highlighting their effects on fire regimes, nutrient cycling, and landscape structure. Panels A–C show: (A) the presence of M. minutiflora and Urochloa spp following escape from cultivated pastures into natural areas; (B) a fire event intensified by elevated fuel loads in a grass-invaded landscape; and (C) a post-disturbance scenario characterized by simplified vegetation structure, biodiversity loss, and landscape homogenization. Some visual elements in this figure (e.g., plant silhouettes) were generated using an AI image model (ChatGPT, OpenAI) and assembled by the authors.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Structural contrast in the Brazilian Cerrado. (A) Native savanna vegetation; (B) area invaded by the alien grasses A. donax and M. maximus, showing dense cover by these two grasses and reduced structural heterogeneity of the vegetation.

Supplementary material: File

Ferreira and Franco supplementary material

Ferreira and Franco supplementary material
Download Ferreira and Franco supplementary material(File)
File 86.9 KB

Author comment: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Professor David Eldridge/Professor Osvaldo Sala

We are pleased to submit our review article entitled “On the Rise: The Impact of Exotic Grasses on Neotropical Savannas” for consideration for publication in Drylands.

In this manuscript, we provide a comprehensive synthesis of the ecological impacts of invasive exotic grasses in neotropical savannas, with particular emphasis on the Brazilian Cerrado. Our review integrates current findings from ecological, physiological, and modelling studies to examine how these species alter fundamental ecosystem processes, including fire regimes, nutrient cycling, and native plant community dynamics. We also discuss the implications of climate change for invasion dynamics and ecosystem resilience.

This article offers a timely and critical perspective on the growing threat posed by invasive grasses to tropical savannas, ecosystems that remain underrepresented in conservation agendas despite their high biodiversity and functional importance. We believe that the review will be of interest to a broad audience of ecologists, conservation scientists, land managers, and policy-makers working on biological invasions, ecological restoration, and dryland ecosystem management.

Thank you for considering our submission.

Sincerely,

Cristiane Silva Ferreira

Corresponding author

Review: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The authors review the current knowledge of the ecological impacts of the ten most invasive grass species in Neotropical savannas. This review is valuable as it synthesizes the significant impacts of these invasive species in Neotropical savannas and bringing perspectives on how invasion dynamics shift with climate change, as well as how to protect native areas from these invasive species. However, some improvements are needed, and I provide some comments suggesting them.

First, the language could be refined for conciseness, helping to save words while maintaining essential information. Additionally, the text would benefit from improved coherence, particularly regarding the geographical scope of the review. The authors reference four regions—Neotropics, South America, Cerrado, and Amazonian savannas—without clear distinctions, often focusing primarily on the Cerrado. Reorganizing this information to define the focus more clearly would significantly enhance the text’s clarity, for example, by presenting evidence from the broader to the narrower context (e.g. Neotropics > South America > Cerrado). Regarding the discussion of impacts, the organization of topics could be improved by categorizing them into main topics and subtopics based on their effects on the structure, function, and biodiversity of native savannas.

Furthermore, the literature cited primarily addresses studies within the Cerrado savanna, indicating a need for more explicit geographical demarcation in the review. It would also be beneficial to elaborate on the methodologies for consulting herbaria, illustrating their importance to invasion biology, and providing more detail about the records mentioned in the study, such as whether they were collected from native or degraded sites.

The manuscript has 6269 words, and the journal’s limits are 3000-5000 words (for extensions, please contact the editorial office) and contains no more than five display items (figures or tables). The authors need to work to reduce 1269 words from the main document. I believe that a language review and narrative reordering would help, especially to make the text more fluid and concise.

Here are some suggestions for overall improvement:

1. Include definitions of exotic species, Neotropical savannas, and Cerrado.

2. Clarify the geographical delimitations of the study and provide justification for them. Are you focusing on the Neotropics or specifically South America?

3. Explain the methodology utilized for the literature review.

4. Include the method for consulting herbarium records and explain why these records are essential to the research. Did you consult the first record of all species or just the first record in natural habitats, which indicates invasion?

5. For Figure 1, add a white background behind the letters (a, b, c, and d).

6. Consider including information about the breeding programs for exotic species used for forage and how these programs have contributed to the spread of species and increased invasion risk. For example, creating more disturbance-resistant varieties can enhance persistence and reduce the success of control efforts. Moreover, these species are often considered weeds in various croplands, negatively impacting productivity and requiring management for control. The economic impact of these invasive species on agribusiness is a key reason for the development of control methods.

7. It would be beneficial to discuss the review in the context of changes in structure, function, and biodiversity, as this rationale could be easier to understand.

8. Better address the evidence presented by including appropriate references.

And, follow the specific comments:

Introduction

Line 38: include the botany family Poaceae after stating of exotic grasses.

Line 45-48: I suggest replacing the “open vegetation formations” with open ecosystems. Also, clarify the absence and weakness of public policies and conservation actions compared to forest ecosystems.

Line 50: Here, the authors describe the shift from exotic to invasive. However, I missed a definition of what “exotic” species mean for a non-specialist understanding.

Line 51: Once established, where? I believe the authors should mention why and where they are established before discussing the escaping problem, such as pastures, erosion control actions, and agroforestry systems. The authors may find references for these examples. Alternatively, state that this will be explored further in the next topics.

Lines 59-67: Why does drought increase the spread of exotic grasses? More evidence is needed to support this rationale. Briefly explain the adaptive advantages of invasive grasses in surviving prolonged droughts and the other effects of climate change. Alternatively, state that this will be explored further in the next topics.

Major invasive grasses in Neotropical savannas

The outcomes of this section are confusing. One of my guesses is that the authors intended to present the species selection criteria, along with the literature review and the collection of trait data, while also defining the geographical scope of the manuscript analysis.

I strongly recommend reformulating this paragraph, perhaps by clearly defining the study range (Neotropics or South America, and Cerrado). In lines 71-72 you state, “we synthesise current knowledge on the impacts of the major invasive grasses in Neotropical savannas, with particular emphasis on the Brazilian Cerrado.”

After clearly delimiting which savannas you are interested in analyzing for invasion impacts, explain the criteria from larger to smaller scales, supporting these criteria with your specific aims for each scale. Attach the different sources of information you chose to use and explain why this is important for understanding invasion in savannas across the delimited regions.

What I understood was that the selection of exotic invasive species was based on the Lopes et al. (2023) study, which identified the ten most invasive grasses in the Neotropics (not just in savannas or the Cerrado, as noted in line 82; please clarify). It’s important to remember that the Neotropical region includes the tropical areas of South America and Central America, with the Cerrado located within tropical South America. Providing a brief definition of these regions would enhance comprehension.

With this starting point (10 most invasive grass species of the neotropics), I recognized that you conducted a literature review (lines 86-88) to assess their occurrence and invasive status within the parameters defined for this study. However, additional details on how the literature review was carried out would be appreciated, such as the academic databases (e.g., Web of Science) and the word combinations employed in the research. The research sequence can also clarify how the information was collected. Did the authors initially consult the invasive species database (Horus)? What did you select from there? What additional data did you need that Horus did not provide? What were the subsequent steps and why?

Lines 82-84: Is the selection criterion carried out by Lopes? If so, please clarify.

Lines 84-86: include the authors’ names after each botanical species when they are first presented in the text.

Lines 89 and 96: All citations should adhere to the Cambridge A style, and confirm how to properly cite websites.

Lines 99-100: How did the authors find the conclusion that Melinis repens has received the least attention in South American savannas? Did you conduct a literature review on this and compare it with the species' occurrence? What methods were used to achieve this outcome? Supporting the methodologies and steps of the literature review would help clarify this. Additionally, consider why this information is essential here.

History of invasive grass introduction into savanna ecosystems

Line 105 – Is it referring to the savanna ecosystem globally or specifically to neotropical/South American savannas? Please clarify accordingly. It’s essential to ensure clarity and coherence regarding the geographical delimitations of the study.

Lines 114-116: There is something to consider here. Many of these species were introduced as a trial for higher productivity forage, since the natural pastures of the Cerrado were not suitable for cattle farming; however, they did not thrive in our pasture conditions and instead became an invasive problem. There is evidence in literature about this.

Line 118: Are the herbarium records associated with their occurrence in natural habitats? A brief explanation of what the herbarium records signify would be helpful.

Lines 125-127. It is unclear when Urochloa decumbens, U. humidicola, and U. ruziziensis were introduced. Please provide clarification.

Lines 130-134: Contain a misplaced statement. Consider the relevance of this statement in this context.

Lines 144-146: include a citation for this statement

Missed a final paragraph wrapping up the history of the spread of all species and how this can potentially impact their invasiveness. The authors can also mention that they are causing problems in urban areas and croplands, not just natural ecosystems, and that they can be treated as weeds when unwanted, which supports the development of management methods to control them (and briefly provide some examples).

Ecology, distribution, and vulnerability of South American savannas

All right, so here the delimitation is for South American savannas. However, the characteristics and references mentioned in this section clearly refer to the savannas of the Cerrado. Please clarify the geographical delimitation of each part of the study.

Line 159: Replace Roraima with “Roraima State”

Line 161-164: Please add the references for this statement.

Lines 164-170: Are those characteristics applicable to all South American savannas mentioned above? The references only include studies about the Cerrado. Please consider clarifying this and aligning it with the aims of the study.

Also, the references for Eiten, 1972, and Gottsberger and Silberbauer-Gottsberger, 2006, are missing. Please verify and add the references.

Line 171 – Can you clarify what you mean by “anthropogenic fire”? This term could refer to a range of things, from controlled burns to criminal fires. When discussing fire in savannas, it’s best to be specific about your meaning, so I recommend explicitly stating what you intend.

Line 176 – We are back in the Neotropical savannas. This is confusing.

Line 177: Back to Cerrado.

Lines 180-183: This information can be presented alongside the previous statistic of 50% vegetation loss. Consider filtering the information in the text and rearrange them to save space (words).

Lines 184-190: The Law reference should be addressed to the first sentence of the paragraph, where the authors explain the law. The comment in lines 187-189 needs to be addressed to a reference showing evidence of the rising agricultural expansion in Central Brazil or, better, in the Cerrado. Also, think about how you want to be specific to Brazil, while your title and aims promise the analysis on a bigger scale. I think you can consider two options: narrow the study to the Cerrado, clarifying when you’ll emphasize the Cerrado’s savannas and keep with the specificities of this biome, or broaden the research for the neotropical savannas, including the specificities of the other savannas.

Line 92: Could you clarify what you mean by ecophysiological attributes? There’s no column in Table 1 with that name, but I did notice “Adaptive traits." It might be helpful to expand on what you meant by Adaptive traits when presenting your methodology for gathering information.

Biodiversity loss

This section would benefit from further details on the trends presented. I noticed the details are in the following sections. Should they be subsections?

Line 282 – I suggest replacing the topic title with “Invasion and Biodiversity Loss” to be clearer.

Line 292 – What defines a “heavily invaded” area?

Alteration of biogeochemical cycles

This paragraph is well-written and synthesizes new information about biogeochemical shifts induced by invasive plant-soil feedbacks.

Line 320-322: Include a reference

Fire regime shifts

About cerrado…

331-332 – Again, be cautious about anthropogenic fires. Define it for better clarity, to prevent any misunderstandings.

333 – Replace combustible with flammable

338 – How close? Include some values

Climate change: synergies with biological invasion

This is also a good section: synthesizing important information about the responses of exotic species to drought and increased CO2.

372-374: go further into the comparison with native species – how deep is the grass root system in savannas? Is it related to the native species' strategies to endure the dry season (like conservative traits, rather than acquisitive, which differs from the strategies of invasive species)? I believe this is relevant to the invasion process and the discution in this review.

Line 444 – Savannization is detrimental to savannas. We must be cautious when using this term, particularly regarding savanna conservation. Consider replacing it with forest degradation.

Line 447 – Reference the figure at the end of the sentence. Additionally, you can describe the example of the pictures shown.

Lines 448-450: The delimitation here is Cerrado and Amazonian savannas. The lack of consistency makes it difficult to understand whether the information in the paper relates to which region.

Addressing invasive grasses in management, recovery and restauration of native savannas

The title of this section requires a language revision. Additionally, there needs to be clarification on what native savannas are referring to: South American, Neotropical, Cerrado, or Amazonian?

Explore the seedling planting technique within the context of invasion, exploring its advantages and limitations. For example, the availability of species in nurseries and the advantages of controlling invasive species (priority effects). There are some studies out there on these topics.

Lines 454-463: The authors need to better address the sentences with citations. Additionally, the geographic delimitation again influences the understanding of the ideas. You state that direct seeding is the most widely used technique, but is this true for all native savannas? Both references at the end of the paragraph are from studies conducted in the Cerrado savannas.

Lines 472-473: Include studies on the persistence of invasive species seed banks.

Lines 535-542: Address with references.

Lines 546-549: Include the impact on soil microbiota and ecosystem processes.

552 – It is unclear why plant functional groups should be regarded as a means to enhance ecosystem resilience. This needs to be explained earlier in the main text.

557-560: Consider the limitations of UAV imagery for the herbaceous layer in savannas, especially the difficulty in differentiating between invasive species and the various native species.

I would include to mitigate the impacts the need for studies to understand the climate change impacts on grass species in the cerrado, to comprehend the changes in the native community and predict the dynamics of invasion. This may help identify potential native species that could compete with invasives in this altered scenario.

Conclusion

The conclusion is repetitive and lacks clarity. The geographical delimitation is also confusing.

582- Including ecotones in the conclusion of a savanna review is unlikely. Please consider revising it for a more impactful conclusion regarding the invasion in Neotropical savannas.

Review: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The manuscript entitled “On the rise: the impact of exotic grasses on neotropical savannas” delivers a synthesis of the invasion history of the ten most problematic grass species and their ecological consequences for neotropical savanna ecosystems. Overall, the text is well-written and the literature cited is both current and relevant. However, some sections could benefit from refinement, as certain topics appear in more than one place, and others could be streamlined (see specific comments below).

In my opinion, this work is particularly timely, given current government incentives to restore degraded pastures in the Brazilian Cerrado, which are the areas most vulnerable to exotic grass invasion. In my experience, these fast-growing exotic grasses have a limited capacity to invade preserved Cerrado areas, which typically have very acidic soils, forming only small patches in the most suitable locations, such as humid areas near water bodies. However, these grasses possess a competitive advantage over native species in areas where soils have been limed or in highly degraded sites, such as roadsides. These are also the areas that will require restoration efforts in the coming years. However, reinvasion by exotic species into restoration sites after a few years is the main obstacle to the long-term success of restoration projects. Therefore, I believe the manuscript’s relevance could be more strongly emphasized by exploring this topic further in the Introduction section.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

L93 – Please change “and enabled” to “enabling.”

L187-190 – Still, according to the National Plan for the Recovery of Native Vegetation (PLANAVEG), there is currently a deficit of 4.6 million hectares requiring restoration, and restoration efforts will be concentrated on these areas.

Section ‘Ecology, distribution, and vulnerability of South American savannas’

It would be helpful to include a map in Figure 1 highlighting the distribution of savanna areas.

Section ‘Savanna fragments in the Amazon’

Since most studies focus on the Cerrado, which also represents the largest area of Neotropical savanas, I suggest shortening this section and placing it after the Cerrado section.

L192 – Consider using “Savanna patches in the Amazon” to avoid confusion with fragments resulting from human-induced fragmentation process.

L207-210 – Slow growth and high belowground allocation represent the predominant strategy among species in Neotropical savannas. This functional contextualization might fit better in the section “Ecology, distribution, and vulnerability of South American savannas.”

L232-233 – Clarify why Amazonian savannas are described as having “limited functional resilience to invasion.” Although I am not deeply familiar with Amazonian savannas, pristine Cerrado savannas typically resist invasion.

Section ‘Cerrado: The world’s most biodiverse…’

L241 – Clarify why the Cerrado ranks among ecosystems most susceptible to invasion. What makes it more prone to invasion than other biomes?

L258-264 – This paragraph seems out of context in this section. The use of these exotic species for erosion control is not exclusive to the Cerrado and relates more broadly to the historical introduction process. The impact of these species on fire regimes could be discussed in the section specifically addressing fire.

Section ‘Ecological impact of invasive grasses’

L269 – Specify clearly what “ecosystem stability” refers to. Using a broader term such as “ecosystem functioning” might be more appropriate since stability depends on the specific functions measured, and some invaded areas may exhibit increased stability in certain aspects.

L276 – Fast-growing exotic grasses typically have tissues with higher nutrient concentrations and turnover rates, potentially increasing soil fertility. This can reinforce invasions by competitively excluding native species adapted to less fertile conditions.

Section ‘Biodiversity Loss’

Consider highlighting that much of the high herbaceous species diversity in Neotropical savannas consists of very small species, often with dozens per square meter, which the dense invasive grass layers tend to suppress.

Section ‘Alteration of biogeochemical cycles’

L321-322 – Clarify the assertion “reducing carbon stocks,” as Garcia et al. (2022) found increased carbon storage in invaded áreas by U. decumbens.

Section ‘Fire regime shifts’

Consider adding context about the natural fire frequency in the Cerrado and how rapid exotic grass growth can accumulate sufficient fuel within one year, leading to more intense and frequent fires.

Section ‘Climate change: synergies with biological invasion’

L416 – Recheck the statement “reduced transpiration rates by nearly 100%.” Confirm this value, as it suggests complete cessation of transpiration.

L436-439 – Provide references supporting the claim that C4 species may be favored over C3 species in nutrient-poor soils.

L453 – Change “restauration” to “restoration.”

Recommendation: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R0/PR4

Comments

Dear Dr. Ferreira,

Two reviewers have provided thoughtful comments on your review of the impact of exotic grasses on neotropical savannas. I agree with their assessment that the review provides a valuable overview of the history and impacts of invasive grasses on these diverse and threatened ecosystems. I also agree with their requests for considerable revisions. Most notably, as stated by the first reviewer, the review ought to be refined for conciseness. In addition to suggestions made by the reviewers to improve conciseness, I suggest the authors' include more of their own synthesis and interpretation of particular impacts. This may improve the flow of the impacts section while also allowing the authors to shorten the word count by already contextualizing and summarizing key finds for readers rather than stating individual findings from specific studies. In addition, I would like the authors to include some discussion of how the selected invasive grasses compare to native flora. This would provide ecological context for readers. For example, is the native flora also dominated by C4 grasses or no? This information is important for understanding the ecological mechanisms of invasion in these systems. Please also check all formatting (e.g., consistent formatting of species names).

Thank you for your submission and I invite you to thoroughly address reviewer comments and suggestions.

Decision: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R1/PR6

Comments

Prof. Laura Yahdjian

Editor-in-Chief,

Cambridge Prisms: Drylands

Brasília, 17 October 2025

Dear Prof. Henk Hilhorst

Attached please find the revised copy of the manuscript entitled “On the rise: the impact of invasive grasses on South American savannas”, which was previously named “On the Rise: The impact of exotic grasses on neotropical savannas". We uploaded both clean and tracked changes versions of the manuscript. We provide a point-by-point reply to the comments and refer to the clean copy in answering the handling editor and reviewer comments.

The manuscript has undergone major reorganization. Most sections were redone following the reviewer’s suggestions. The abstract and the Introduction were also improved. We included the impact Statement below the abstract, a separate file with the graphical abstract, ‘Author Contribution Statement’, ‘Financial Support’, ‘Conflict of Interest Statement’, ‘Data Availability Statement’.

We are very excited with this thoroughly revised version of the manuscript, and we thank the handling editor and reviewers for their constructive comments, which have greatly improved the manuscript.

The manuscript has not been published or simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere.

Best regards

Cristiane Ferreira and Augusto Franco

Review: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The manuscript is highly relevant, addressing one of the major threats to the conservation and maintenance of the Cerrado, as well as its interaction with other ecological and functional factors that play key roles in sustaining this ecosystem. Given the magnitude of biological invasions in the Cerrado, the authors provide a valuable compilation of information that offers important insights to support two critical efforts: invasive species management and ecosystem restoration. However, I have some specific questions and suggestions, which I outline below.

Selection of the nine most common invasive species

The authors propose to focus on the nine most frequently reported invasive species in the

Cerrado, based on studies published over the past five years. From the entire dataset

consulted (published papers, Horus database, Reflora, SpeciesLink database), can the

authors show how research e>ort has been distributed among these species? For instance,

what proportion of studies has focused on a given species or on multiple species

simultaneously? This could help identify the current hot topics in invasion ecology within the

Cerrado.

As the authors correctly note, invasive species di>er substantially in their management

requirements and in their e>ects on native plant communities (e.g., di>erences between

Melinis minutiflora and Urochloa brizantha). Therefore, based on their compiled data, it

might be possible to identify target species that warrant focused research efforts. The

authors could use this opportunity to encourage the scientific community and non-scientific

agencies to prioritize studies on the ecological and functional effects of these key invaders,

as well as on effective management and restoration strategies for invaded areas.

Challenges in restoration

In the section discussing restoration challenges, it is important to highlight that many

restoration projects using direct seeding rely heavily on woody species, which respond quite

di>erently from herbaceous species. This represents a major gap in Cerrado restoration

ecology: the effective restoration of the native herbaceous layer remains a significant

challenge, whether through direct seeding or topsoil translocation. The authors briefly

mention the importance of including different functional groups, but as we know,

successfully reintroducing them is extremely di>icult. In this context, what do the authors

suggest as potential ways forward?

Specific comments

Abstract, line 4-5: the symbol in “invasive \perennial” appears inverted; please correct.

Page 8, line 166: “...wildfires”: The presence of invasive grasses can indeed increase the

likelihood of fire occurrence, but wildfires are not solely determined by flammability.

Consider revising to “frequency of fire events or fire occurrence” instead.

Page 24, line 545: “...(Medeiros et al., 2023)”: This reference appears to differ from the one

listed in the reference section. Please verify for consistency.

Review: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The revised version of the manuscript “On the rise: the impact of exotic grasses on neotropical savannas” shows substantial improvement and, in my view, remains highly relevant and timely, especially in the context of current efforts to restore degraded pastures in neotropical savannas such as the Brazilian Cerrado. Specifically, the text is more focused and cohesive, with a clearer narrative flow throughout the sections. The discussion is more balanced and informative, and the manuscript provides a well-supported overview of this pressing issue.

Only minor adjustments may still be needed, but I do not see any major issues remaining.

Minor adjustments

Line 54 – The expression “to serve as feed” could be replaced by “to serve as forage” to make the sentence clearer.

Lines 62–69 – This paragraph became too vague after the recent cuts. Please clarify which complexity climate change adds to the invasion process. The transition to the next sentence feels abrupt and could be made more logical.

Line 151 – The sentence sounds incomplete. What about the remaining 40% of pastureland—are these native areas without invasive species? Please clarify.

Lines 306–309 – The current phrasing suggests that more diverse communities occur in more fertile locations, but the cited study (Lannes et al.) was a fertilization experiment. Consider rephrasing to avoid misinterpretation.

Lines 324–326 – This statement needs a supporting citation.

Lines 402–403 – Please clarify the interactive effect: was the CO2 enrichment effect only observed under high nitrogen availability?

Review: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R1/PR9

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

General comments

The manuscript reviews the recent literature assessing various aspects of invasions by non-native grasses in South American tropical savannas. The review highlights important recent findings on distinct negative impacts of those species, also linking their success with global changes and reviewing distinct management options. Considering that invasions by African grasses are one of the major drivers of degradation in South American savannas and the topic has been increasingly studied, the manuscript is welcome and may be an important reference in the field. Nevertheless, I believe that the literature review could be improved, particularly concern the impacts; although the title focus on the impacts, I did not see a more extensive review on these aspects, whereas the role of climate change as a driver of those invasions and management options were well covered. Overall, particularly considering the short coverage of the review (2000 to 2025) I believe that the manuscript could be more general about patterns, drivers, impacts and managements option on the grass invasions in South American savannas. If authors want to keep the focus on impacts, this part should be strengthened citing more literature, perhaps starting in the mid-2000s. In addition, authors should be more careful with the association of sentences and literature, as in my opinion several sentences in multiples topics lack citations. I have suggested below more literature that could be cited in different topics.

Specific comments

Title – Considering that the review is not limited to the impact of invasive grasses, I recommend not referring specifically to this on the title.

Line 4 and 24– I suggest using here “ invasive non-native….”. To my knowledge all invasive species in South American savannas are perennial (We do have Melinis repens as a short-lived perennial, but their invasion is generally limited to heavily disturbed sites) .

Line 38 – I recommend citing the IPBES IAS Assessment and associated articles (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02412-w; https://zenodo.org/records/11629357)

Line 41 – I believe that they contributed both to establishment and spread.

Line 42 – The 2000 review about this topic should be cited: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010040524588

Lin 43 – Are you focused on changes in the disturbance regime or referring to more general impacts? Is this later case, I would use “negative impacts”

Line 51 – Here the definition of non-native invasive species should be mentioned, including a citation.

Line 54 – Citation needed. Also, in my opinion the fact that nearly all the species introduced to this aim are native to Africa.

Line 56- citation needed.

Line 70 – I believe that there is no relevant invasive annual grass in such ecosystems, so that in my opinion adding perennial here is not necessary.

Line 72 – Considering that the Cerrado is not limited to savannas, I recommend using “includes the…..”

Line 79 – I would expected that vulnerability to grass invasions would be highlighted here.

Line 80-82 – Citation needed.

Line 88-89 – Considering the here authors refer to very distinct savanna ecosystems, considering both the structure (tree and grass cover) and diversity patterns, perhaps dense grass cove and diverse layer of C3 herbs may not apply to all these ecosystems. Also, a citation is needed here.

Line 91-92 – For me this is too little about the soil in South American savannas, as this may be critical to the success of African grasses. Also, no citation is included (for a Cerrado review please see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-022-05517-y).

Line 93 – citation needed.

Line 102 – Considering the focus on this system, I believe that a brief introduction of this system is required, also clarifying that it is dominated by savannas but also include other ecosystems.

Line 105 – Considering the rapid land use changes in the MATOPIBA region, I recommend updating this to the 2024/2025 MAPBiomas data.

Line 106 – suggestion: protected areas instead conservation units.

Line 109 – I would mention here that part of this degradation is associated with invasive species (see https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade-e-biomas/biodiversidade1/especies-exoticas-invasoras/sampaio_schmidt_2013_spp_invasora_uc_fed_brasil.pdf)._

Line 111 – I recommend mentioning the local name for this ecosystem (Campinarama)

Line 123 – Citation needed.

Line 124 – suggestion: “northern savannas in South America”.

Line 137 – citation needed, such as the studies of Mendonça et al.

Line 137-138 – Alongside the threats that it has been subjected, this should be clear here including a citation.

Line 140-142- citation needed. Also, this should be much more explored here, as the huge area of non-native grasses pastures in the region is a key factor to the success of invasive species in the region (see https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1409347111 and https://www.publish.csiro.au/cp/CP13319).

Line 144 – I recommending not using “biome” to refer to the Amazon region for an international audience, as it generally is not included as one of the global biomes.

Line 145 – The concept of “Legal Amazon” is likely unknown for an international audience, so a brief explanation of the concept is needed.

Line 147-148 – Here I believe that the a brief mention to the newest Brazilian agricultural frontier, the MATOPIBA region, is needed (see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105713 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2024.08.003).

Line 161 – Please maintain the consistency on the use of non-native/exotic/alien to refer to species introduced outside their native range.

Line 164 and 167 – Please cite the name alongside the botanical authors at the first mention.

Line 196-197 – Why specifically the scopus database? Also, searches focusing on the impact of invasive grasses in savannas in South America would make more sense for me considering the aims of the study. Please justify this broad literature review.

Line 203- Considering that no review on this topic has been performed in the last 20 years, perhaps increasing this to at least 10 years would be very important to include important literature.

Line 2013-215 – This is true for some of the early introductions (M. minutiflora and H. ruffa), I suggest making this clear here.

Line 2018-219 – reference needed.

Line 220-222 – Considering that most African savannas where those species are native are much drier than South American savannas, I am usure about the role of this prolonged dry season.

Line 2214- Here I see a confusion of concepts depending on the definition of invasive species, as one non-native species is often only considered as invasive after these established populations started to spread to other areas (considering the widely using Blackburn et al 2011 framework). I recommend simply saying “established populations”.

Line 228- Reference needed. Parsons?

Line 232-233 – I was surprised with this sentence, as other publications suggest that the main U. brizantha cultivar was introduced in Brazil by Embrapa in 1984 (Nunes SG, Boock A, Penteado MI de O, Gomes DT (1984) Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu. Documentos Embrapa, No. 21. Embrapa/CNPGC, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.) . I believe that these details and dates should be checked. The study by Jank el al 2024 suggest distinct dates and a large dominance of B. brizantha cultivars more recently.

Line 240-241 – Reference needed.

Line 250 – I believe that “ecological impacts” would be more appropriated here.

Line 1254 – reference needed.

line 279 – Perhaps those should appear in italic or with some numbering to make clear that are subtopics of the ecological impacts section.

Line 280-290– Are those studies in South America? Should be clear in the test when impact refer specifically to the region.

Line 297-300 – Citation needed.

Line 301-303 – I believe that the description here should be reviewed, as this is study is more focused on the N and C soils stocks, although authors do indirectly interpretate that distinction between invaded and uninvaded sites may be associated with those changes in nutrient cycling.

Line 310-311 – I believe that the second part of this sentence should be more careful, as those studies are more descriptive about the changes than showing how it affects the recovery of native communities.

Line 314-318- Citation needed.

Line 323- citation needed.

Line 335-326 – citation needed.

Line 326-233 – I believe that those very important studies on eh effect of invasive African grasses on fire regimes should be much more discussed here, as effects are often context-dependent and quite complex.

Line 346-350 – Were these studies performed in South America, where specifically? It would be interesting to have those details here.

Line 357 – suggestion: “to invasive grasses over…”

Line 398-409 – No sure how relevant is this for the manuscript, as this study was not performed in South America.

Line 415-417 – reference needed.

Line 449-450 – suggestion: “tend to the insufficient…”

Line 454- Another relevant study on this topic: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13103, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13534

Line 458 – Another study on phenological differences between native and invasive grasses in the Cerrado: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-019-02013-w

Recommendation: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R1/PR10

Comments

Dear Dr. Cristiane Ferreira,

Thank you for your revisions to the manuscript based on earlier reviews, the manuscript is much improved in my opinion. However, reviewers have some additional suggestions that I hope you can address. Most notably, a new reviewer (Reviewer #3) notes “…although the title focus on the impacts, I did not see a more extensive review on these aspects, whereas the role of climate change as a driver of those invasions and management options were well covered”. I agree with this assessment and suggest a slight change in the title to something along the lines of: “On the rise: impacts and management of invasive grasses in South American savannas” rather than a re-writing of the manuscript to something. This slight re-framing would also allow the authors to address two new suggestions of Reviewer #1 (1) emphasizing that restoration of the herbaceous layer of Cerrado vegetation remains a significant challenge… and to (2) “use this opportunity to encourage the scientific community and non-scientific agencies to prioritize studies on the ecological and functional effects of these key invaders, as well as on effective management and restoration strategies for invaded areas”. Although I appreciate the new reviewers’ suggestion of outlining the distribution of effort for these 9 species, I do not think this is necessary for the manuscript.

I hope the authors can address these conceptual suggestions in the next round of revisions along with minor comments and suggestions from all reviewers. Once these changes are made, I would be excited to consider this manuscript to be included in an upcoming themed collection for the journal: Drylands of South America.

Information: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-prisms-drylands/announcements/call-for-papers/drylands-of-south-america-ecology-without-borders-that-integrates-environment-and-society

Thank you and best wishes,

Magda Garbowski

Reviewers Comments

Reviewer #1

The manuscript is highly relevant, addressing one of the major threats to the conservation and maintenance of the Cerrado, as well as its interaction with other ecological and functional factors that play key roles in sustaining this ecosystem. Given the magnitude of biological invasions in the Cerrado, the authors provide a valuable compilation of information that offers important insights to support two critical efforts: invasive species management and ecosystem restoration. However, I have some specific questions and suggestions, which I outline below.

Selection of the nine most common invasive species

The authors propose to focus on the nine most frequently reported invasive species in the

Cerrado, based on studies published over the past five years. From the entire dataset

consulted (published papers, Horus database, Reflora, SpeciesLink database), can the

authors show how research e>ort has been distributed among these species? For instance,

what proportion of studies has focused on a given species or on multiple species

simultaneously? This could help identify the current hot topics in invasion ecology within the

Cerrado.

As the authors correctly note, invasive species di>er substantially in their management

requirements and in their e>ects on native plant communities (e.g., di>erences between

Melinis minutiflora and Urochloa brizantha). Therefore, based on their compiled data, it

might be possible to identify target species that warrant focused research efforts. The

authors could use this opportunity to encourage the scientific community and non-scientific

agencies to prioritize studies on the ecological and functional effects of these key invaders,

as well as on effective management and restoration strategies for invaded areas.

Challenges in restoration

In the section discussing restoration challenges, it is important to highlight that many

restoration projects using direct seeding rely heavily on woody species, which respond quite

di>erently from herbaceous species. This represents a major gap in Cerrado restoration

ecology: the effective restoration of the native herbaceous layer remains a significant

challenge, whether through direct seeding or topsoil translocation. The authors briefly

mention the importance of including different functional groups, but as we know,

successfully reintroducing them is extremely di>icult. In this context, what do the authors

suggest as potential ways forward?

Specific comments

Abstract, line 4-5: the symbol in “invasive \perennial” appears inverted; please correct.

Page 8, line 166: “...wildfires”: The presence of invasive grasses can indeed increase the

likelihood of fire occurrence, but wildfires are not solely determined by flammability.

Consider revising to “frequency of fire events or fire occurrence” instead.

Page 24, line 545: “...(Medeiros et al., 2023)”: This reference appears to differ from the one

listed in the reference section. Please verify for consistency.

Reviewer #2

The revised version of the manuscript “On the rise: the impact of exotic grasses on neotropical savannas” shows substantial improvement and, in my view, remains highly relevant and timely, especially in the context of current efforts to restore degraded pastures in neotropical savannas such as the Brazilian Cerrado. Specifically, the text is more focused and cohesive, with a clearer narrative flow throughout the sections. The discussion is more balanced and informative, and the manuscript provides a well-supported overview of this pressing issue.

Only minor adjustments may still be needed, but I do not see any major issues remaining.

Minor adjustments

Line 54 – The expression “to serve as feed” could be replaced by “to serve as forage” to make the sentence clearer.

Lines 62–69 – This paragraph became too vague after the recent cuts. Please clarify which complexity climate change adds to the invasion process. The transition to the next sentence feels abrupt and could be made more logical.

Line 151 – The sentence sounds incomplete. What about the remaining 40% of pastureland—are these native areas without invasive species? Please clarify.

Lines 306–309 – The current phrasing suggests that more diverse communities occur in more fertile locations, but the cited study (Lannes et al.) was a fertilization experiment. Consider rephrasing to avoid misinterpretation.

Lines 324–326 – This statement needs a supporting citation.

Lines 402–403 – Please clarify the interactive effect: was the CO2 enrichment effect only observed under high nitrogen availability?

Reviewer #3

General comments

The manuscript reviews the recent literature assessing various aspects of invasions by non-native grasses in South American tropical savannas. The review highlights important recent findings on distinct negative impacts of those species, also linking their success with global changes and reviewing distinct management options. Considering that invasions by African grasses are one of the major drivers of degradation in South American savannas and the topic has been increasingly studied, the manuscript is welcome and may be an important reference in the field. Nevertheless, I believe that the literature review could be improved, particularly concern the impacts; although the title focus on the impacts, I did not see a more extensive review on these aspects, whereas the role of climate change as a driver of those invasions and management options were well covered. Overall, particularly considering the short coverage of the review (2000 to 2025) I believe that the manuscript could be more general about patterns, drivers, impacts and managements option on the grass invasions in South American savannas. If authors want to keep the focus on impacts, this part should be strengthened citing more literature, perhaps starting in the mid-2000s. In addition, authors should be more careful with the association of sentences and literature, as in my opinion several sentences in multiples topics lack citations. I have suggested below more literature that could be cited in different topics.

Specific comments

Title – Considering that the review is not limited to the impact of invasive grasses, I recommend not referring specifically to this on the title.

Line 4 and 24– I suggest using here “ invasive non-native….”. To my knowledge all invasive species in South American savannas are perennial (We do have Melinis repens as a short-lived perennial, but their invasion is generally limited to heavily disturbed sites) .

Line 38 – I recommend citing the IPBES IAS Assessment and associated articles (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02412-w; https://zenodo.org/records/11629357)

Line 41 – I believe that they contributed both to establishment and spread.

Line 42 – The 2000 review about this topic should be cited: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010040524588

Lin 43 – Are you focused on changes in the disturbance regime or referring to more general impacts? Is this later case, I would use “negative impacts”

Line 51 – Here the definition of non-native invasive species should be mentioned, including a citation.

Line 54 – Citation needed. Also, in my opinion the fact that nearly all the species introduced to this aim are native to Africa.

Line 56- citation needed.

Line 70 – I believe that there is no relevant invasive annual grass in such ecosystems, so that in my opinion adding perennial here is not necessary.

Line 72 – Considering that the Cerrado is not limited to savannas, I recommend using “includes the…..”

Line 79 – I would expected that vulnerability to grass invasions would be highlighted here.

Line 80-82 – Citation needed.

Line 88-89 – Considering the here authors refer to very distinct savanna ecosystems, considering both the structure (tree and grass cover) and diversity patterns, perhaps dense grass cove and diverse layer of C3 herbs may not apply to all these ecosystems. Also, a citation is needed here.

Line 91-92 – For me this is too little about the soil in South American savannas, as this may be critical to the success of African grasses. Also, no citation is included (for a Cerrado review please see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11104-022-05517-y).

Line 93 – citation needed.

Line 102 – Considering the focus on this system, I believe that a brief introduction of this system is required, also clarifying that it is dominated by savannas but also include other ecosystems.

Line 105 – Considering the rapid land use changes in the MATOPIBA region, I recommend updating this to the 2024/2025 MAPBiomas data.

Line 106 – suggestion: protected areas instead conservation units.

Line 109 – I would mention here that part of this degradation is associated with invasive species (see https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade-e-biomas/biodiversidade1/especies-exoticas-invasoras/sampaio_schmidt_2013_spp_invasora_uc_fed_brasil.pdf)._

Line 111 – I recommend mentioning the local name for this ecosystem (Campinarama)

Line 123 – Citation needed.

Line 124 – suggestion: “northern savannas in South America”.

Line 137 – citation needed, such as the studies of Mendonça et al.

Line 137-138 – Alongside the threats that it has been subjected, this should be clear here including a citation.

Line 140-142- citation needed. Also, this should be much more explored here, as the huge area of non-native grasses pastures in the region is a key factor to the success of invasive species in the region (see https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1409347111 and https://www.publish.csiro.au/cp/CP13319).

Line 144 – I recommending not using “biome” to refer to the Amazon region for an international audience, as it generally is not included as one of the global biomes.

Line 145 – The concept of “Legal Amazon” is likely unknown for an international audience, so a brief explanation of the concept is needed.

Line 147-148 – Here I believe that the a brief mention to the newest Brazilian agricultural frontier, the MATOPIBA region, is needed (see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105713 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2024.08.003).

Line 161 – Please maintain the consistency on the use of non-native/exotic/alien to refer to species introduced outside their native range.

Line 164 and 167 – Please cite the name alongside the botanical authors at the first mention.

Line 196-197 – Why specifically the scopus database? Also, searches focusing on the impact of invasive grasses in savannas in South America would make more sense for me considering the aims of the study. Please justify this broad literature review.

Line 203- Considering that no review on this topic has been performed in the last 20 years, perhaps increasing this to at least 10 years would be very important to include important literature.

Line 2013-215 – This is true for some of the early introductions (M. minutiflora and H. ruffa), I suggest making this clear here.

Line 2018-219 – reference needed.

Line 220-222 – Considering that most African savannas where those species are native are much drier than South American savannas, I am usure about the role of this prolonged dry season.

Line 2214- Here I see a confusion of concepts depending on the definition of invasive species, as one non-native species is often only considered as invasive after these established populations started to spread to other areas (considering the widely using Blackburn et al 2011 framework). I recommend simply saying “established populations”.

Line 228- Reference needed. Parsons?

Line 232-233 – I was surprised with this sentence, as other publications suggest that the main U. brizantha cultivar was introduced in Brazil by Embrapa in 1984 (Nunes SG, Boock A, Penteado MI de O, Gomes DT (1984) Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu. Documentos Embrapa, No. 21. Embrapa/CNPGC, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.) . I believe that these details and dates should be checked. The study by Jank el al 2024 suggest distinct dates and a large dominance of B. brizantha cultivars more recently.

Line 240-241 – Reference needed.

Line 250 – I believe that “ecological impacts” would be more appropriated here.

Line 1254 – reference needed.

line 279 – Perhaps those should appear in italic or with some numbering to make clear that are subtopics of the ecological impacts section.

Line 280-290– Are those studies in South America? Should be clear in the test when impact refer specifically to the region.

Line 297-300 – Citation needed.

Line 301-303 – I believe that the description here should be reviewed, as this is study is more focused on the N and C soils stocks, although authors do indirectly interpretate that distinction between invaded and uninvaded sites may be associated with those changes in nutrient cycling.

Line 310-311 – I believe that the second part of this sentence should be more careful, as those studies are more descriptive about the changes than showing how it affects the recovery of native communities.

Line 314-318- Citation needed.

Line 323- citation needed.

Line 335-326 – citation needed.

Line 326-233 – I believe that those very important studies on eh effect of invasive African grasses on fire regimes should be much more discussed here, as effects are often context-dependent and quite complex.

Line 346-350 – Were these studies performed in South America, where specifically? It would be interesting to have those details here.

Line 357 – suggestion: “to invasive grasses over…”

Line 398-409 – No sure how relevant is this for the manuscript, as this study was not performed in South America.

Line 415-417 – reference needed.

Line 449-450 – suggestion: “tend to the insufficient…”

Line 454- Another relevant study on this topic: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13103, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13534

Line 458 – Another study on phenological differences between native and invasive grasses in the Cerrado: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-019-02013-w

Decision: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R1/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R2/PR12

Comments

Prof. Laura Yahdjian

Editor-in-Chief,

Cambridge Prisms: Drylands

Brasília, 15 January 2026

Dear Prof. Laura Yahdjian

Attached please find the revised copy of the manuscript entitled “On the rise: impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas”, which was previously named “On the rise: the impact of invasive grasses on South American savannas ". We uploaded both clean and tracked changes versions of the manuscript. We provide a point-by-point reply to the comments and refer to the clean copy in answering the handling editor and reviewer comments. We followed the many useful suggestions and comments presented by the three reviewers and the handling editor.

We also refined the text for conciseness and readability, which has involved some reorganization of the text. We also improved the Conclusion section. We included the impact Statement below the abstract, a separate file with the graphical abstract, ‘Author Contribution Statement’, ‘Financial Support’, ‘Conflict of Interest Statement’, ‘Data Availability Statement’.

We thank the handling editor and reviewers for their constructive comments, which have greatly improved the manuscript.

The manuscript has not been published or simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere.

Best regards

Cristiane Ferreira and Augusto Franco

Recommendation: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R2/PR13

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R2/PR14

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R3/PR15

Comments

Prof. Laura Yahdjian

Editor-in-Chief,

Cambridge Prisms: Drylands

Brasília, 16 January 2026

Dear Prof. Laura Yahdjian

Attached please find the revised copy of the manuscript entitled “On the rise: impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas”, which was previously named “On the rise: the impact of invasive grasses on South American savannas ". We uploaded both clean and tracked changes versions of the manuscript.

We provide a point-by-point reply to your comments and refer to the clean copy in answering them.

We included the impact Statement below the abstract, a separate file with the graphical abstract, ‘Author Contribution Statement’, ‘Financial Support’, ‘Conflict of Interest Statement’, ‘Data Availability Statement’.

We thank the handling editor and reviewers for their constructive comments, which have greatly improved the manuscript.

The manuscript has not been published or simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere.

Best regards

Cristiane Ferreira and Augusto Franco

Recommendation: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R3/PR16

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: On the rise: Impacts and challenges in management of invasive grasses in South American savannas — R3/PR17

Comments

No accompanying comment.